This woman gets 20 years for firing WARNING shot in Florida

i feel like she may have not had the best legal counsel

lostrib

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

1) Firing a WARNING shot is stupid and dangerous.

2) She went into the garage, pushing past her husband, got the gun, then fired.

helwa1988

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

[QUOTE="helwa1988"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

1) Firing a WARNING shot is stupid and dangerous.

2) She went into the garage, pushing past her husband, got the gun, then fired.

WhiteKnight77

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

[QUOTE="helwa1988"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

1) Firing a WARNING shot is stupid and dangerous.

2) She went into the garage, pushing past her husband, got the gun, then fired.

WhiteKnight77

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="helwa1988"] The man abused her. She was a afraid of him. Most women in that situation would have shot to kill him. But she practiced restraint and just fired a warning shot.helwa1988

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

or perhaps he wont

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="helwa1988"] The man abused her. She was a afraid of him. Most women in that situation would have shot to kill him. But she practiced restraint and just fired a warning shot.thebest31406

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

so she wanted to preserve a life by endangering children?

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

lostrib

so she wanted to preserve a life by endangering children?

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="helwa1988"] The man abused her. She was a afraid of him. Most women in that situation would have shot to kill him. But she practiced restraint and just fired a warning shot.helwa1988

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] Well maybe she didn't want to shoot the guy. Maybe she wanted to preserve life, a gun is a deadly weapon after all. Arbitrary law enforcement is one thing but she committed no moral wrong.. thebest31406

so she wanted to preserve a life by endangering children?

needlessly discharging a fire arm.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is what restraint gets you.

had she shot and killed him her defense would have easily gotten a not guilty verdict.

nobody would ever have known she completely escaped the situation retrieved a gun then went back inside.

MrGeezer

you have to keep your big trap shut until you speak to a lawyer then let the lawyer present your defense.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

so she wanted to preserve a life by endangering children?

frannkzappa

needlessly discharging a fire arm.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] In what way?thebest31406

needlessly discharging a fire arm.

she already escaped the situation then she came back... just to shoot the gun.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

needlessly discharging a fire arm.

frannkzappa

she already escaped the situation then she came back... just to shoot the gun.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] Wasn't needless. The man has a history of abuse and she wanted him gone. So she fired the gun.thebest31406

she already escaped the situation then she came back... just to shoot the gun.

walk???

people have legs.

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"]

THis is getting ridiculous. They let Gerorge Zimmerman off but this black woman gets 20 years for nothing.Its like these white people want a race war. America is the most rasict place on Earth smh

frannkzappa

you obviously havn't been to Europe.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] Well maybe she didn't want to shoot the guy. Maybe she wanted to preserve life, a gun is a deadly weapon after all. Arbitrary law enforcement is one thing but she committed no moral wrong.. thebest31406

so she wanted to preserve a life by endangering children?

she fired a bullet into a wall that then ricocheted, while children were present

Oh look,OT trying to justify her getting locked up what a shocker Bucked20

well she committed a crime, but it seems most people don't agree with the 20 year minimum sentence

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

she already escaped the situation then she came back... just to shoot the gun.

frannkzappa

walk???

people have legs.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] She claimed she didn't have the keys to the car. How would she have escape? thebest31406

walk???

people have legs.

except she already had walked away with out being pursued... to get her gun, she could have kept walking.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is what restraint gets you.

had she shot and killed him her defense would have easily gotten a not guilty verdict.

nobody would ever have known she completely escaped the situation retrieved a gun then went back inside.

Riverwolf007

you have to keep your big trap shut until you speak to a lawyer then let the lawyer present your defense.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="helwa1988"] The man abused her. She was a afraid of him. Most women in that situation would have shot to kill him. But she practiced restraint and just fired a warning shot.helwa1988

That does not give her a right to shoot a gun at him to "warn" him. Firing a weapon can be a felony. If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the person who is attacking you. At the time she fired the warning shot, she committed a felony since she was able to leave the situation without further bodily harm being done to her and returned, hence why she was charged and tried and found guilty. She returned to shoot that weapon. It was not self defense. Now if she had the gun on her and didn't have to retrieve it from a different location and shot him while he was beating her, she would most likely never have been charged.  

Until my Pops death  last Labor Day Weekend, I have known not one instance where he laid a hand on her in 52 years of marriage (their anniversary was just days before his death). My Pops always thought of my Ma as an angel and professed that to my brothers a week or so before he died.

My sister on the other hand, was abused by her first husband. I don't know all the specifics, but I do know it started out after he found out he was diabetic. A medical condition is no reason to start abusing someone. I even told him when I first met him to treat my sister right or I would be after him. Idle rhetoric maybe, but I can't say what I ould have done if I had ever saw him again. Still, she did not see a reason to shoot a gun at him or want to kill him. She got divorced and years down the road, married again and is having a wonderful life with her second husband.

Now if my sister had done the same thing as that woman in Florida and was arrested and charged, I would feel the same way, but she didn't, she removed herself from the situation. I do not let emotions rule my being objective and allow them to disregard facts. You cannot endanger someone's life without repercussions no matter what. The woman in Florida showed wreckless abandon by shooting a warning shot. Bullets travel long distances. Even a pistol round can travel a mile depending on the size of the round. She had children in the house and could have hit anyone of them. She would have been better off is she actually shot her (ex)husband and killed him and lawyered up (presumption as to what she would have done if she did kill him). 

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

walk???

 

people have legs.

frannkzappa

except she already had walked away with out being pursued... to get her gun, she could have kept walking.

THis is getting ridiculous. They let Gerorge Zimmerman off but this black woman gets 20 years for nothing.Its like these white people want a race war. America is the most rasict place on Earth smh

JordanizPro

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Well, theoretically she didn't think she did anything wrong, or else it would have been stupid for her to not take the plea deal. So if she had shot her husband and killed him, there's a good chance she still would have described the situation accurately (including the part where she got the gun and then went back into the home). Why would she lie or omit that part if she didn't think she had done anything wrong? She still wouldn't be able to invoke the "stand your ground" defense, she'd still be the aggressor, and there'd also now be someone who's dead by her hands. It's good for her that she didn't shoot her husband, that only would have made things worse for her.MrGeezer

you have to keep your big trap shut until you speak to a lawyer then let the lawyer present your defense.

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"]

THis is getting ridiculous. They let Gerorge Zimmerman off but this black woman gets 20 years for nothing.Its like these white people want a race war. America is the most rasict place on Earth smh

AmazonTreeBoa

I feel that there are some double standards in Florida, maybe she had some previous convictions and that may have made the difference. AbstractRadical

no, it's a mandatory minimum.

NO ONE can get less than 20 years for that crime( in florida).

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]you don't have to lie about it.

you have to keep your big trap shut until you speak to a lawyer then let the lawyer present your defense.

Riverwolf007

the truth is whatever you tell your lawyer it is

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] So...you expect the lawyer to lie about what happened?lostrib

the truth is whatever you tell your lawyer it is

eeew, that is no way for a legal system to work.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"]

THis is getting ridiculous. They let Gerorge Zimmerman off but this black woman gets 20 years for nothing.Its like these white people want a race war. America is the most rasict place on Earth smh

thebest31406

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]so... you expect a lawyer to tell the truth about what happened?

frannkzappa

the truth is whatever you tell your lawyer it is

eeew, that is no way for a legal system to work.

No, that's how lawyers work.  I mean it's the job of defense attorneys to just plant reasonable doubt, and even if they know you're guilty, they can't say anthing since it's all confidential

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Seems you are stupid and didn't even bother reading the article. That or you read it and just didn't grasp what you read. This doesn't have shit to do with race. The judge's hands are tied. He has to follow the law. Let's not forget she fired it at a wall with her kids right there with her husband. Like it said, the bullet could have bounced off the wall and hit the kids. She shouldn't get 20 years, but this isn't the judges fault or the "white mans" fault. Seem like the only racist here is you for instantly assuming this had anything to do with race when it doesn't. It has to do with mess up laws. I am going to guess you are a black person.AmazonTreeBoa

Should have followed a kid, and then killed him, and then she would have been fine Rich3232

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]Why would I say what? You have to be more specific as to which part of my part you are talking about.AmazonTreeBoa

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] That you assume that he's a Black person. They're are plenty of Whites who find this to be an example of racial bias in the justice system.JordanizPro

no, you're stupid

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"] "Its like these white people want a race war." That's why.lostrib

no, you're stupid

so... you expect a lawyer to tell the truth about what happened?Riverwolf007

Wow... and we even got people supporting this sentence. It's like some of you enjoy that big authoritarian dick deep up your ass.m25105

Warning shots could very well be dangerous but no one can justify 20 years.thebest31406

If you don't have the RIGHT to possess a gun and you do, it is a federal offense and I believe you can serve up to 10 years for it. Shooting it on top of it, looks like it adds another 10 to it. Zimmerman was in his right to possess and fire a gun to defend himself. End of story. He was brought to trial for murder. They could not prove that he murdered him. Time to move on.

xscrapzx

[QUOTE="JordanizPro"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"] "Its like these white people want a race war." That's why.lostrib

no, you're stupid

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

If you don't have the RIGHT to possess a gun and you do, it is a federal offense and I believe you can serve up to 10 years for it. Shooting it on top of it, looks like it adds another 10 to it. Zimmerman was in his right to possess and fire a gun to defend himself. End of story. He was brought to trial for murder. They could not prove that he murdered him. Time to move on.

ferrari2001

You do realize that you both agree right? Still, he is right about one point, not everyone is allowed to own a weapon and the Supreme Court has backed that up even when the stated that yes, we as individuals have a right to own a weapon. If you are a felon, you are not allowed by law in most states, to own one. To do so is also a felony. Why do you think so many people face tougher penalites when convicted of a crime when they commit other crimes using a firearm?

florida is a pretty backwards place so yeah it all makes sense.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] She claimed she didn't have the keys to the car. How would she have escape? thebest31406

walk???

people have legs.

How in the flying fvck is that not an option? She escaped the situation, then went back into the situation with a loaded gun and fired it. If someone starts beating the shit out of me, I get away, then I come back and shoot them that's not self defense. Once you are away from the situation and not in immediate danger you call the police or seek safety.

No one is saying she deserves 20 years. Are any of you morons capable of critical thinking?

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

walk???

 

people have legs.

SpartanMSU

How in the flying fvck is that not an option? She escaped the situation, then went back into the situation with a loaded gun and fired it. If someone starts beating the shit out of me, I get away, then I come back and shoot them that's not self defense. Once you are away from the situation and not in immediate danger you call the police or seek safety.

No one is saying she deserves 20 years. Are any of you morons capable of critical thinking?